(http://www.jewishworldreview.com)
THE POLITICAL COMMENTARIAT has anointed the square-jawed Texas
Governor with the familiar political name as the "inevitability" candidate.

Translation: George W. Bush has surged way past his rivals for the GOP
presidential nomination, because he is seen by a troubled party as the
Republican who can win in November of 2000.

Meanwhile, the ideological purity wing of the GOP has already pronounced
itself on the "compassionate conservatism" theme put forth by Bush: They are
the "weasel words" of a "Gore Lite."

But George W. seems to understand something that the commentariat doesn't:
GOP voters want more than a candidate who can win in November. They want a
conservative candidate who can win in November. And George W. also seems to
understand something that the purity-peddlers should: Conservative voters
don't see "compassion" as a compromise designed to lure non-traditional
voters. They see it as central to the conservative creed.

Being the "inevitability" candidate means you have lots of endorsements,
triple-A fund-raising prospects, media buzz --- and expectations so high that
anything short of total domination during the primary season will be
interpreted as failure. The primary graveyards are filled with the remains
of "inevitable nominees" like George Romney and Ed Muskie. "Inevitability"
candidacies tend to be self-fulfilling and self-referential: The candidate
sells his ability to sell himself, like an overvalued Internet stock.

Bush

But starting with the March 7 Austin launch of his presidential exploratory
committee, Bush demonstrated that he intends to sell something more than an
illusion of his own invincibility. George W. means to sell conservatism.

Since Ronald Reagan's departure from the scene, many conservatives have
tried to rebrand the conservative philosophy as inclusive, optimistic and
open- hearted. President Bush had compassion, but he lacked credibility on
the conservative street. His "kinder, gentler" pitch sounded like mush to
the right. Newt Gingrich understood conservatism as a compassionate creed,
and was able to move conservative audiences to tears. But he couldn't sell
it beyond his conservative base, no matter how many lion cubs he frolicked
with.

Bush's delivery at his national announcement was at times halting and
uncertain. At other times it was a little over-caffeinated, like Dan
Quayle's national emergence in 1988. Bush lacked the high gloss of seasoned
national campaigners who have smooth auto-pilot responses for any question.
But this only humanized him. After seven years of Clinton, maybe the country
has learned to distrust slickness.

But in terms of message, Bush created an aura of inclusion and caring
without giving away conservative philosophy. He called for an "English-plus"
instead of "English-only" approach to teaching immigrant students. If
there's a difference we'd like to know it. No one preaching so-called
English-only is against kids learning a foreign language. By demolishing a
straw man Bush helped undermine the stereotype of nativism and xenophobia
that has attached itself to conservatism.

The Republican party has gotten a bad rap on immigration and inclusion. For
example, it would be hard to think of more pro-immigration politicians than
Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey and Phil Gramm. Bush isn't challenging
conservatives or conservatism; he is challenging the bad rap.

He called for retaining the "pro-life tenor" of the GOP, without tying
himself specifically to the ban-abortion plank in the GOP platform. He
endorsed abortion restrictions that a large majority of Americans support (a
ban on "partial-birth" abortions, no federal funding and parental
notification) but reminded people that the GOP is a large coalition that can
accommodate pro-choicers, like Rep. Jennifer Dunn, a member of his
exploratory committee. He specifically ruled in the possibility of a
pro-choice running mate.

Yes, Bush will be pressed by the right to endorse the anti-abortion plank
and commit to appointing Supreme Court justices pledged to overturning Roe
v. Wade. But he knows he does not have to get into this bidding war. Some in
the pro-life wing will swallow any misgivings about Bush and vote for him in
the primaries because they're tired of losing. The rest will go elsewhere --
but their votes will be split among Buchanan, Quayle, Forbes, Bauer, Keyes,
Smith. In a field stuffed with prohibitionists, Bush can afford to be seen
merely as a restrictionist.

In 2000 there will be some new advantages to being the front-runner. Bush
will likely get incoming artillery fire from the candidates of the right.

Normally this could soften him up for Al Gore in the general election in
November. But because of the heavily front-loaded primary calendar in 2000,
the front-runner can wrap up the nomination early, preempting months of
trench warfare.

Such a big-win front-running scenario might also give Bush the ability to
choose his state delegate slates in a way that will allow him to shape the
tenor of the always-troubling Republican convention and platform. The Bush
delegates should be his delegates. All he has to do is insist that they act
like compassionate
conservatives.

Ben Wattenberg is a senior fellow at the
American Enterprise Institute
and is the moderator of PBS's "Think Tank." Daniel Wattenberg
writes regularly for The Weekly Standard and is a contributing editor for
George.